3sustainable reform in numerous law enforcement agencies around the country.
United States v. Puerto Rico
, 12-cv-2039 (D.P.R. filed Dec. 21, 2012);
United States v. Town of East Haven,
12-cv-1652 (D. Conn. filed Nov. 20, 2012);
United States v. City of Seattle
, 12-cv-1282(W.D. Wash. filed July 27, 2012);
United States v. City of New Orleans
, 12-cv-1924 (E.D. La.filed July 24, 2012);
United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands
, 08-cv-158 (D.V.I. filed Dec.23, 2008);
United States v. City of Detroit
, 03-72258 (E.D. Mich. filed June 12, 2003);
United States v. City of Los Angeles
, 00-cv-11769 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 3, 2000);
United States v. Cityof Pittsburgh
, 97-cv-354 (W.D. Pa. filed Feb. 26, 1997).The United States’ strong interest in ensuring constitutional policing would be directlyand substantially implicated should the Court find that NYPD stops and searches individuals in amanner that violates the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment’sguarantee of equal protection of the laws are bedrock constitutional rights that safeguard individuals from unlawful police conduct. Virtually every police investigation conducted by theCivil Rights Division of the Department of Justice touches on these issues in some way, and theform of the remedies available are critical to this nationwide work. In light of the United States’clear interest in ensuring that any constitutional deficiencies the Court may find are adequatelyremedied, the United States files this Statement of Interest on the availability and appropriatescope of injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of New York in January 2008, challenging NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
This is not the first case to challenge the constitutionality of NYPD’s stop-and frisk conduct. In 1999, a putative class of plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of New York, similarly alleging that NYPD’s practices
Case 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP Document 365 Filed 06/12/13 Page 3 of 21